The Allahabad High Court said that the Petitioner’s claim for gratuity shall not be rejected only on the ground that “Option Form” has not been filled by the petitioner’s wife.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Joshi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ajit Kumar Srivastava.
The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent No 3, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to release Death-Cum Retirement Gratuity in favour of the petitioner along with interest within stipulated period to be specified by the Court.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent No 3, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to decide the application/representation dated 18.11.2021 submitted by the petitioner, within a specific period as may be directed by the Court .”
The Petitioner’s wife was working as Assistant Teacher (Biology) in Shiv Murti Balika Inter College, Kerakat, District Jaunpur. She died on May 2, 2021. Grievance is that though other benefits have been released but the amount of gratuity has not been released on the ground that the option to retire at the age of 60 years was not exercised by the wife of the petitioner.
It is next submitted that the petitioner has filed a representation in this regard on November 18, 2021 before the respondents which has not been decided till date.
Also Read: Former NSE CEO Chitra Ramkrishna sent to 14-day judicial custody in NSE co-location case
It is next submitted by counsel for the petitioner that controversy involved in the case has already been adjudicated by the Court in a number of writ petitions. Reference can be had to the judgment of the Court in Writ- A no 7416 of 2019, Smt Sarvesh Kumari vs State Of U.P And 3 Others, decided on 15.04.2019.
Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that no useful purpose would be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending and an appropriate direction may be issued to the authority concerned to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgement in the case of Smt Sarvesh Kumari (supra) within stipulated period.
“In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated November 18, 2021 in light of judgement passed in Smt Sarvesh Kumari (Supra) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time.
Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court directs petitioner to approach competent authority against encroachment
Petitioner’s claim for gratuity shall not be rejected on the ground that “Option Form” has not been filled by the petitioner’s wife”, the order reads.